When tenure hurts kids

Our opinion: A decision on tenure in California may go too far, but it underscores the need for better teacher accountability.

In most states, even when a public school teacher has earned tenure, he or she may still be fired as long as there is a finding of “just cause.”

But the process to establish such a finding is costly, so much so many districts avoid it except in the most egregious cases. A 2011 study in New York found that, on average, firing a teacher takes nearly 17 months and costs about $216,000 per case.

Faced with similar situations, according to Harvard researchers, school districts across the country often assign the ineffective teachers to an inner city school and move on — a practice that disproportionately hurts poor and minority children. The bad teacher continues to draw a salary from a limited payroll that could have been used to hire a bright, competent replacement. And, when there are layoffs, the most recently hired get fired, regardless of how good they are.

A California state judge cited this research last week June 9when he declared that state’s teacher tenure system unconstitutional. The decision, which will be appealed, was applauded by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and many education reform groups. It was decried by teachers’ unions and has rekindled the debate over how to fix the problem of poorly performing teachers and make them more accountable.

As the California decision was handed down, the head of New York State United Teachers, the state’s largest teachers union was lobbying for a moratorium on the state Education Department’s plan to use Common Core-related test scores in teacher evaluations. Gov. Andrew Cuomo had successfully pushed districts to implement teacher evaluation plans as a condition for receiving certain state aid. The agreement came over NYSUT’s objections.

Now, largely due to the disastrous Common Core rollout, lawmakers seem poised to put a hold on state-mandated teacher evaluations before the legislative session ends this week.

To suggest that all the problems in education would be solved if poorly performing teachers could more easily be replaced would be an absurd oversimplification. But it’s essential to develop a system that fairly and honestly evaluates teachers throughout their careers, not just during their first three years on the job when they are up for tenure. When a teacher is failing, there must be consequences.

Tenure protections for teachers have been in New York in some form since 1917, with the reasonable purpose of protecting teachers from arbitrary firings based on the whims of supervisors. But their protections go beyond those of other public servants.

Like every public employee facing discipline or dismissal, teachers deserve due process. But dragging it out and making it so expensive is an injustice to those for whom the education system exists — our children.

Instead of fighting to push off teacher evaluations, NYSUT should be working for better ways to expedite the evaluation and discipline processes to maintain top quality teachers in every school. That’s good for children, and good for their profession.

10 Responses

Tenure does not mean job protection for life; it meant due process which all employees should have, even at the TU! Tenure ensures that teachers can teach about history, science, math in ways that reflect their knowledge based on their advanced degree. For one, it ensures that teachers who choose to go gray, won’t be fired for a younger, less experienced employee.
Read up on the Vergera Trial, it’s not pretty. The goal with tenure busting, Common Core, testing, and charters are all about union busting and privatization.http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/13/opinion/california-ruling-on-teacher-tenure-is-not-whole-picture.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1

The opinion that teachers solely bear the burden of responsibility is singleminded in analysis, and reckless.

Yes, the point is made, there are some ‘bad’ teachers.

But what of ‘bad’ administrators, ‘bad’ coaches, ‘bad’ parents?

Can we just as readily remove them from the system?

I agree that there must be an equitable way to remove ‘bad’ teachers. However, there must also be a way to do so for bad administrators, bad superintendents, bad coaches.

As for bad parents, they must also hold a large portion of responsibility. Insuring that their child understands the importance of an education, preparing them to learn, and insuring they have done everything possible to work collaboratively within the system, instead of tearing it down without cause.

Once taxpayers start viewing education as an investment, and not a commodity that is purchased, that will be the first step on a long path.

Next step, would be districts recognizing that many parents in their community are relatively smarter than most subject specific teachers. The ivory tower must be brought down to include a collaborative approach with parents and community organizations. Teachers can NOT be the sole purveyors of education.

@mom, your first link has nothing to do with “union busting and privatization” and in any case was written by a witness for the defense in the Vergera trial, so it’s not exactly an unbiased source. In any case corporations involved in education (ex textbook companies) make a fortune off taditional k-12 education and are in bed with the k-12 establisment including Teachers Unions. Your second link is to a Diane Ravitch’s web site, and she is basically a paid PR person for the Teachers Unions. The article itself is so full of lies and distortions it makes me want to vomit.
@Mark Grimm, I like your proposal except that it doesn’t really seem to take into account the fact that the students that need the most help and the best teachers are invariably the ones that get the least help and the worst teachers. The urban school districts that I’m familiar with would regularly assign the worst teachers to the hardest to teach kids then not give those classes textbooks.
@Rousseau,
Administrators, superintendents, coaches, etc, don’t have tenure and are regularly fired, particularly coaches who generally have almost no job protection at all. Also, children can’t help it if their parents are doing a bad job and shouldn’t be punished again by being assigned to the worst teachers. I had a business in a city with a school district with a lot of poor, disabled, and minority children. In effect these poor kids were kicked in the teeth by life, but instead of getting compassionate and effective help when they entered school they were kicked in the teeth again by the schools, particularly by bad teachers who should have been fired years before. These teachers have to go. If you want to go after the parents I’m all for that too, but in the meantime do everything and anything possible to get these kids good teachers, even if it means the Teachers Unions have to give up some power and privilege. In any case teachers are educated adults and can advocate for themselves, Who’s going to advocate for an 8 year old from a messed up family?

Diogenes II: You are wrong about tenure for administrators and coaches. Your solution is also short sighted. Just getting rid of teachers who are bad in inner cities fixes nothing. Why are the “worst” teachers in the inner city schools (this includes charters)? The answer is because of low pay and poor working conditions. Who will replace the few teachers who are willing to teach the harder students to teach? Your other ineptitude is in the premise that inner city teachers are “bad”. What standard is being used and is it solely the teachers responsibility? If a teacher decides to teach students who score low on tests, that teacher instantly becomes “bad” because of the population they are dedicated to.

TU Editorial Board: What do you really know about the new teacher evaluations? It’s sad that the Times Union considers this article informative. The only upside is that it is posted in the opinion section. I say sad, because the opinion expressed does not look at why NYSUT and teachers are disappointed with the new evaluations. Try doing some actual research before you pick a side. Teachers want accurate evaluations. Teachers are also on board with getting rid of “bad” teachers. The problem is that the new evaluation system considers every teacher “bad” and every student below grade level. You have know idea what it is like to watch a child take a test that is above them developmentally and then be judged by the improperly designed test. I would like to install a test for the Times Union Editorial Board. We could have your readers take a multiple choice test, evaluating their knowledge of current events in our country and region. Your career would then rely on the results of this test. Of course, we would make this test completely secure so you and the public cannot question its validity or appropriateness.

A little more research would have behooved the Editorial Board. The teacher tenure law in NY was amended, effective April 1, 2012. That amendment expedites discipline cases, such that a decision has to be made by a hearing officer within 155 days of the charges being served. So much for citing a 2011 study.

As for administrators being reluctant to bring discipline cases, that’s a cop-out. It is school administrators’ jobs to document teacher shortcomings. If administrators do that properly, discipline hearings wouldn’t be nearly as protracted as they had been in the past and can, in some cases, continue to be.